Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Belichick Vs. Brady?


Hov34

Brady or Belichick for 20 years in their prime?  

130 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

So much wrong with one post...

Do we not give Belichick credit for holding the Falcons offense to 21 points in that game?  An offense that score 80 points in their first two playoff games.  And the defense made two huge plays that made the comeback possible: the strip sack of Ryan when it was 28-12, and then the sack that helped push the Falcons out of FG range when it was 28-20 late. 

SD and KC weren't anything amazing? Oh, so holding the number 1 offense scoreless in the first half on their home field was no big deal, right?  Sure, the dam broke in the second half, but that first half was a gem.  And while the Chargers scored a ton in the second half to make the final score look closer than the game really was, the Patriots defense had Rivers running for his life for most of that game.  I am wondering if you actually watched those games. 

Beat me to it lol.  Thanks for saving me the energy to respond 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the ATL SB doesn't cement that Brady is completely above any other QB I am not sure what to tell you. I just can't believe there are so many people that think the guy who never touches the ball, never steps on the field, and is never responsible for making a clutch play is considered more important to the team's success than the guy that actually has to go out there and perform. Also, it isn't like this year's run was anything special in regards to gameplan/coaching. The SB was a masterpiece but SD and KC weren't anything amazing.

In the free agency / salary cap era (25 years), the SB winning team has rostered an average of 5.3 players that were selected that year to the Pro Bowl. The 98 Broncos and 94 Niners each had 10. The 2018 Patriots had 2 Pro Bowl players (Brady and Gilmore). If you can't look into the talent level on this team and how far they over achieved, I don't know what to tell you. 

In the 2018 SB, NE allowed 41 points and 538 yards. In the 2019 SB, with mostly the same defense (Hightower back and a couple different CB's), they allowed 3 points and 260 yards. Did any of that huge change have anything to do with Brady? Or was that coaching and game planning?

There is no way to separate Brady from Belichick. Yes, Brady has had games where he brought them back from the dead. But in those games, the defense had no margin for error either. And there have been plenty of off seasons where the defense, game planning, kicking, etc. had a huge role in NE winning the SB. As I posted in one of these threads, the D/ST scored as many TD as the offense did in the 2001 playoff run. The whole team gets credit for the win, so it's hard to single out anyone as "the cause."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

If the ATL SB doesn't cement that Brady is completely above any other QB I am not sure what to tell you. I just can't believe there are so many people that think the guy who never touches the ball, never steps on the field, and is never responsible for making a clutch play is considered more important to the team's success than the guy that actually has to go out there and perform. Also, it isn't like this year's run was anything special in regards to gameplan/coaching. The SB was a masterpiece but SD and KC weren't anything amazing.

I don’t know the point of your first sentence because I’ve already acknowledged that.  Belichick being more responsible for the team’s success and Brady being the GOAT are not mutually exclusive.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those that haven't seen it, the Mic'd Up replay of the SB is fascinating, especially the parts involving BB. It starts with him engaging the refs to try to figure out the timing of closing the roof to when the opening kick would be. He presses the zebras to tell him exactly so he knows which way to kick based on the wind with the roof still open if they had to kickoff.

As the game goes on, it's clear BB is very hands off. He lets the coordinators and other coaches do their thing. He reminds them at key points, especially down the stretch, that he doesn't care what they call but they need to have the right players and good communication on what the play call is. He often is shown giving feedback and observations to the unit that just came off the field and emphasizes proper technique and what to look for.

In the 4th quarter, he calls in his OC and DC and again tells them to do what they've been doing, no dumb mistakes, and no penalties. He even tells McDaniels to call his best plays, even if they are passing plays, once they had the lead. After the TD, he tells his defense they can't lose the game unless they make a major mistake and they have nothing that can beat them.

By comparison, McVay looked like he was fretting on every play. I haven't seen McVay that much, and the few times I have, he seems pretty hyper. They don't show him talking to his team very often, so hard to guess what he was telling his players. 

I also found it interesting that in the huddle, the offense kept reminding Michel to stay in bounds. I wonder how often coaches and other players remind players of the obvious. In the NE huddle, they also discuss drying their hands on every play so not to cough up the football.

Also noteworthy was the discussion on the sideline on the 4th and inches call late in the game. Brady convinces BB that a FG would end the game and would be the better play. You can tell BB wanted to go for it, but he sided with Brady. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

In the free agency / salary cap era (25 years), the SB winning team has rostered an average of 5.3 players that were selected that year to the Pro Bowl. The 98 Broncos and 94 Niners each had 10. The 2018 Patriots had 2 Pro Bowl players (Brady and Gilmore). If you can't look into the talent level on this team and how far they over achieved, I don't know what to tell you. 

In the 2018 SB, NE allowed 41 points and 538 yards. In the 2019 SB, with mostly the same defense (Hightower back and a couple different CB's), they allowed 3 points and 260 yards. Did any of that huge change have anything to do with Brady? Or was that coaching and game planning?

There is no way to separate Brady from Belichick. Yes, Brady has had games where he brought them back from the dead. But in those games, the defense had no margin for error either. And there have been plenty of off seasons where the defense, game planning, kicking, etc. had a huge role in NE winning the SB. As I posted in one of these threads, the D/ST scored as many TD as the offense did in the 2001 playoff run. The whole team gets credit for the win, so it's hard to single out anyone as "the cause."

LOL.. yeah. They overachieve because they have a GOAT QB that turns guys like Brown, Branch, Welker, and Edelman into playmakers. C'mon... you just ignore BB's record as a head coach prior to Brady starting. It is ridiculous. We have multiple seasons of BB head coaching into losing records. He all of a sudden becomes a great head coach when Brady takes the reins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

So much wrong with one post...

Do we not give Belichick credit for holding the Falcons offense to 21 points in that game?  An offense that score 80 points in their first two playoff games.  And the defense made two huge plays that made the comeback possible: the strip sack of Ryan when it was 28-12, and then the sack that helped push the Falcons out of FG range when it was 28-20 late. 

SD and KC weren't anything amazing? Oh, so holding the number 1 offense scoreless in the first half on their home field was no big deal, right?  Sure, the dam broke in the second half, but that first half was a gem.  And while the Chargers scored a ton in the second half to make the final score look closer than the game really was, the Patriots defense had Rivers running for his life for most of that game.  I am wondering if you actually watched those games. 

LOL...again... just looking for reasons as to why Brady isn't the reason the Pats are good. It is truly laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ZenoRazon said:

At least as many as Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Warren Moon, Jim Kelly, Dan Fouts, are they ham and eggers?

:lol:  I just wanted to slip that ham & egger comment in there because the answer is ZERO. We would discuss Brady like we discuss Marino or Kelly, etc. If he had to play 20 years with Jeff Fisher as HC, he would be saving Fishers job yearly (thus keeping Fisher as his HC and keeping him from winning SBs) by getting the team to winning records and playoff appearances but they would fail when they got close to the SB. I will admit that Belichick/Brady probably win more than Belichick/any other Franchise QB not named Joe Montana with the possible exceptions of P. Manning and Brees. Saying Brady would win SBs with every other coach is simply ridiculous. I can list a 100 that he would fail with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

So basically, you have no real answers to my legitimate points.  Good to know. 

They really aren't legitimate points. They are biased narratives. When NE gives up 40 and 31 points to KC this year - and wins both games - you still give the credit to the coach instead of the guy leading the team to 43 and 37 points. That is really all I need to know. When you ignore BB's .450 winning percentage his 1st 5 years coaching the Browns, his 5-11 season with his 1st NE season,  and then his 0-2 start before Bledsoe gets hurt. Then, all of sudden, he is a .700+ coach with TB - and that isn't primarily because of Brady?!? It is primarily because of his great coaching?!? Give me a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

LOL.. yeah. They overachieve because they have a GOAT QB that turns guys like Brown, Branch, Welker, and Edelman into playmakers. C'mon... you just ignore BB's record as a head coach prior to Brady starting. It is ridiculous. We have multiple seasons of BB head coaching into losing records. He all of a sudden becomes a great head coach when Brady takes the reins. 

In 19 years with BB as a HC in NE, the Patriots defense has allowed 14% fewer points than the league average.

There best seasons defensively in terms of points allowed . . .

2016 - 31.4% better than league average . . . Won SB
2003 - 28.6% better than league average . . . Won SB
2006 - 28.3% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship
2004 - 24.4% better than league average . . . Won SB
2007 - 21.0% better than league average . . . Lost SB

Here were there worst seasons defensively in terms of points allowed . . .

2005 - 2.5% worse than league average . . . Missed playoffs
2000 - 2.1% worse than league average . . . Pre-Brady and sub .500 record
2002 - Exactly league average . . . Missed playoffs
2011 - 3.6% better than league average . . . Lost SB
2012 - 9.1% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship
2013 - 9.7% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship

It should come as no surprise that the years NE had their best defensive seasons they did some of their best work. 3 titles, a SB loss, and an AFCCG loss. Looking at the 5 seasons with Brady and weaker defensive units, equally unshocking is they did not fare anywhere near as well. A SB loss, 2 AFCCG losses, and 2 times missing the playoffs.

No one is suggesting that Brady isn't a big reason why the Patriots have won. But like most other teams, they won more when they have a top defense. Sure, in a round about way Brady could have had some impact on the defense (playing keep away, playing with the lead, making teams one dimensional), but the defense still had to play well to have good numbers. Put another way, in year's where the defense wasn't as good, Brady would have the same impact on the defense in terms of field position, predictability, etc..

Since you've made it clear that anything BB did as a DC or Asst Coach has to be excluded, the Browns averaged 8-9% better than average overall in points allowed in his 5 years as a head coach there. His best season defensively of any of his years as a head coach was in 1994 with the Browns, as they were 37.1% better than average in fewest points allowed. That yielded 1 of 2 playoff years in 26 years for the Browns.

Clearly Brady has been a huge cog in the Patriots machine. BB drafted him and kept him around before Brady ultimately got a chance. IMO, part of the reasons BB has been a lot more successful in NE than CLE has been due to his ability to have more autonomy in drafting players, bringing in free agents, managing the salary cap, and having the backing of ownership. That's way different than in Cleveland. Belichick started a blend of Bernie Kosar, Vinny Testaverde, Mark Rypien, Mike Tomczak, and Eric Zeier at quarterback with the Brownies. Not exactly top shelf talent.

Which brings us to a different question . . . how would have the Patriots done with a rotation of mediocre QBs and how would things have turned out with another HOF caliber QB. Obviously we will never know, but that would make for another interesting debate.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lod001 said:

:lol:  I just wanted to slip that ham & egger comment in there because the answer is ZERO. We would discuss Brady like we discuss Marino or Kelly, etc. If he had to play 20 years with Jeff Fisher as HC, he would be saving Fishers job yearly (thus keeping Fisher as his HC and keeping him from winning SBs) by getting the team to winning records and playoff appearances but they would fail when they got close to the SB. I will admit that Belichick/Brady probably win more than Belichick/any other Franchise QB not named Joe Montana with the possible exceptions of P. Manning and Brees. Saying Brady would win SBs with every other coach is simply ridiculous. I can list a 100 that he would fail with.

Why must he play with a bad coach?

Put Brady with....

Paul Brown

George Halas

Vince Lombardi

Tom Landry

Bill Walsh

Chuck Noll

Marv Levy

Bud Grant

Jimmy Johnson

Bill Parchells

John Madden

Sean Peyton

Sean McVay

Hank Stram

Pete Carroll

Mike Tomlin

.......................now what?

 

Or on a team with a HOF RB, two WR, center, DE, two LB, DB....like Bradshaw had.  Give him a Jerry Rice, an Emmitt Smith, a monster D like those 85 Bears, LEGION OF BOOM.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ZenoRazon said:

Or on a team with a HOF RB, two WR, center, DE, two LB, DB....like Bradshaw had.  Give him a Jerry Rice, an Emmitt Smith, a monster D like those 85 Bears, LEGION OF BOOM.

For starters, we are in the salary cap / free agency era, so I would suggest keeping hypotheticals within the same era. Let's say Brady did end up with a somewhat competent head coach and maybe on a team that had some offensive weapons. Brady probably would have won some titles. However, given that 31 franchises not named the Patriots have all struggled to be top tier competitive and relevant for an extended time, I would think that even with Brady on a different team, that franchise would still make a mess out of managing the salary cap.

So while NE parts ways with the Seymour's, Mankin's, Jones', Collin's, Solder's, and Cooks' of the world and continues to win, other teams persist on shelling out huge contracts and overpaying people which limits their ability to stay competitive more more than a few seasons at a time. The trend lately has been that a team with a good QB on a rookie deal have a window to be really good. But that window starts closing when they have to start paying top of the market for a QB. Similarly, teams like SEA had a run with really good players that then all wanted to cash in at once. It's impossible to pay everyone, so the Seahawks floundered a little bit until they restocked and tranistioned to a new crop of players.

Yes, I agree, that Brady on another team in any given good year probably would have won . . . but likely not for 17 or 18 years in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

For starters, we are in the salary cap / free agency era, so I would suggest keeping hypotheticals within the same era. Let's say Brady did end up with a somewhat competent head coach and maybe on a team that had some offensive weapons. Brady probably would have won some titles. However, given that 31 franchises not named the Patriots have all struggled to be top tier competitive and relevant for an extended time, I would think that even with Brady on a different team, that franchise would still make a mess out of managing the salary cap.

So while NE parts ways with the Seymour's, Mankin's, Jones', Collin's, Solder's, and Cooks' of the world and continues to win, other teams persist on shelling out huge contracts and overpaying people which limits their ability to stay competitive more more than a few seasons at a time. The trend lately has been that a team with a good QB on a rookie deal have a window to be really good. But that window starts closing when they have to start paying top of the market for a QB. Similarly, teams like SEA had a run with really good players that then all wanted to cash in at once. It's impossible to pay everyone, so the Seahawks floundered a little bit until they restocked and tranistioned to a new crop of players.

Yes, I agree, that Brady on another team in any given good year probably would have won . . . but likely not for 17 or 18 years in a row.

I doubt anyone thinks Belichick or Brady would have won like they did if not together, obviously that combo was great.  But....both could have won just like everybody else does without each other.

Tom Brady is among the top 2/3 QB's of all time regardless of who he played for, only a blind man would fail to see this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

In 19 years with BB as a HC in NE, the Patriots defense has allowed 14% fewer points than the league average.

Ok, the offense has scored 28% more than league average w/Brady. And, the 2008 season, after coming off a record breaking season, getting replaced by a QB that both started and made a pro bowl for another team, against the weakest schedule in the NFL, NE was down to 16% over league average. Then, in 2009, with a QB recovering from ACL surgery, they are back up to 24% over league average against one of the toughest schedules in the league. The following year they are up to 47% over league average.

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:


There best seasons defensively in terms of points allowed . . .

2016 - 31.4% better than league average . . . Won SB
2003 - 28.6% better than league average . . . Won SB
2006 - 28.3% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship
2004 - 24.4% better than league average . . . Won SB
2007 - 21.0% better than league average . . . Lost SB

Here were there worst seasons defensively in terms of points allowed . . .

2005 - 2.5% worse than league average . . . Missed playoffs
2000 - 2.1% worse than league average . . . Pre-Brady and sub .500 record
2002 - Exactly league average . . . Missed playoffs
2011 - 3.6% better than league average . . . Lost SB
2012 - 9.1% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship
2013 - 9.7% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship

It should come as no surprise that the years NE had their best defensive seasons they did some of their best work. 3 titles, a SB loss, and an AFCCG loss. Looking at the 5 seasons with Brady and weaker defensive units, equally unshocking is they did not fare anywhere near as well. A SB loss, 2 AFCCG losses, and 2 times missing the playoffs.

Yes, in the NFL you generally need a good O and D to win. Sometimes there are flukes but, in general, they both need to be good. Also, remember what I posted early in the thread. A top D isn't as far from the mean as a top O. In other words, the O is more important and the difference between top 10 O vs. league average is greater than top 10 D vs. league average.

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

No one is suggesting that Brady isn't a big reason why the Patriots have won. But like most other teams, they won more when they have a top defense. Sure, in a round about way Brady could have had some impact on the defense (playing keep away, playing with the lead, making teams one dimensional), but the defense still had to play well to have good numbers. Put another way, in year's where the defense wasn't as good, Brady would have the same impact on the defense in terms of field position, predictability, etc..

No one is suggesting that BB isn't a big part of NE's success either. But, for the love of all that is holy, he isn't more important than the GOAT QB. 

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Since you've made it clear that anything BB did as a DC or Asst Coach has to be excluded, the Browns averaged 8-9% better than average overall in points allowed in his 5 years as a head coach there. His best season defensively of any of his years as a head coach was in 1994 with the Browns, as they were 37.1% better than average in fewest points allowed. That yielded 1 of 2 playoff years in 26 years for the Browns.

Yeah, assistant coaching is meh. I mean, you going to say that McDaniels is a great coach because of the O's in NE but overlook the dumpster fires in Denver and STL?

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Clearly Brady has been a huge cog in the Patriots machine. BB drafted him and kept him around before Brady ultimately got a chance. IMO, part of the reasons BB has been a lot more successful in NE than CLE has been due to his ability to have more autonomy in drafting players, bringing in free agents, managing the salary cap, and having the backing of ownership. That's way different than in Cleveland. Belichick started a blend of Bernie Kosar, Vinny Testaverde, Mark Rypien, Mike Tomczak, and Eric Zeier at quarterback with the Brownies. Not exactly top shelf talent.

Sure, but Brady hasn't exactly had top shelf talent to work with either. He has had Moss for a short period and Gronk. These are the only superstars on O that he has played with the borderline guys like Dillon/Cooks. Brady made Brown, Branch, Welker, and Edelman. These guys are literally nothing but journeymen on other teams. Welker went to Denver and didn't do anything and wasn't lighting things up before the Pats. Branch was a bust with Seattle... but all of a sudden good on NE again. I couldn't believe people were saying Edelman is some sort of HOFer during the SB.

That said, BB has done OK with drafts/caps/free agents *but* this is facilitated by Brady to a huge degree. BB doesn't have to draft for the offense and he has the luxury to trade down all the time because he has a guy that can carry the team no matter what weapons you put in front of him. BB has had 17 1st picks from 2001-2018. The only O skill positions drafted have been Ben Watson, Daniel Graham, Laurence Maroney, and Sony Michel. We will see how Michel fairs, but that isn't exactly loading up the offense for Brady and those aren't exactly stellar picks. I also can promise you, that if Brady retired tomorrow, BB would have quite a bit more difficultly getting guys like Moss or Cooks to sign or keeping guys like Gronk. NE gets good FAs because they think they have a shot for a ring - which they do - but put in some average QB in and those FAs want to go somewhere else. There is also the fact that Brady doesn't get paid nearly market value so that his team has the flexibility to get FAs/keep players. That is on Brady... not on BB.

22 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Which brings us to a different question . . . how would have the Patriots done with a rotation of mediocre QBs and how would things have turned out with another HOF caliber QB. Obviously we will never know, but that would make for another interesting debate.
 

Bledsoe wasn't exactly a mediocre QB - and he didn't do well. HOF QBs have switched teams near their twilight years. Montana, Warner, Manning, Favre off the top of my head and had some pretty good success. Sending Brady to the Browns tomorrow would probably improve them quite a bit more than sending BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ZenoRazon said:

I doubt anyone thinks Belichick or Brady would have won like they did if not together

There are some posters in this thread who seem to think that Belichick was irrelevant and Brady would have had the same career without him. I agree with your perspective that:

  1. Brady would have been great regardless.
  2. Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick.

I am shuked that there are people who disagree with #2 unless they are just :fishing: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

There are some posters in this thread who seem to think that Belichick was irrelevant and Brady would have had the same career without him. I agree with your perspective that:

  1. Brady would have been great regardless.
  2. Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick.

I am shuked that there are people who disagree with #2 unless they are just :fishing: 

We are talking degrees of greatness now. 

If neither had ever been on the same team both STILL would be among the best ever at what they do, just not as great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

SD and KC weren't anything amazing? Oh, so holding the number 1 offense scoreless in the first half on their home field was no big deal, right?  Sure, the dam broke in the second half, but that first half was a gem.  

The Patriots defense stopped kc three times in the first half, but they only got the ball 3 times because brady led the offense on long drives.  

The Patriots offense got the ball at the start of the game and possessed the ball for over 8 minutes, got it again and despite the interception held it for another 6 minutes and then again for close to 5 minutes on their first 3 drives.

Belichick deserves some credit for the ball control approach, i guess, but not as much as brady for executing it. And the defense gave up 31 second half points, so it turns out that keeping the ball away from the chiefs was extremely important 

And it really takes elite quarterback play to lead 3 long drives like that.

Then to execute a perfect two minute drill to end the half with a touchdown, then lead multiple just win touchdown drives down by 4 late in the 4th quarter, then convert 3 straight 3rd and 10s in overtime... That's a legendary game.  

Holding a top offense scoreless for 3 whole drives isn't nothing, it just pales in comparison to what brady did to make that win possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Just Win Baby said:

There are some posters in this thread who seem to think that Belichick was irrelevant and Brady would have had the same career without him. I agree with your perspective that:

  1. Brady would have been great regardless.
  2. Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick.

I am shuked that there are people who disagree with #2 unless they are just :fishing: 

Who said that?  Of course brady benefited from belichick.  The question - if you could only have one who would you take - clearly assumes it's better to have both, and I think everyone has agreed on this. 

You on the other hand said that there's several active qbs who would have done what brady just did if they played for belichick.  

Gtfo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sn0mm1s said:

They really aren't legitimate points. They are biased narratives. When NE gives up 40 and 31 points to KC this year - and wins both games - you still give the credit to the coach instead of the guy leading the team to 43 and 37 points. That is really all I need to know. When you ignore BB's .450 winning percentage his 1st 5 years coaching the Browns, his 5-11 season with his 1st NE season,  and then his 0-2 start before Bledsoe gets hurt. Then, all of sudden, he is a .700+ coach with TB - and that isn't primarily because of Brady?!? It is primarily because of his great coaching?!? Give me a break.

You still didn't answer my questions or address my points, but that is not at all surprising since the bulk of your posts remind me of a child kicking and screaming, "Tom Brady is great, you all are so mean!!" 

24 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

The Patriots defense stopped kc three times in the first half, but they only got the ball 3 times because brady led the offense on long drives.  

The Patriots offense got the ball at the start of the game and possessed the ball for over 8 minutes, got it again and despite the interception held it for another 6 minutes and then again for close to 5 minutes on their first 3 drives.

Belichick deserves some credit for the ball control approach, i guess, but not as much as brady for executing it. And the defense gave up 31 second half points, so it turns out that keeping the ball away from the chiefs was extremely important 

And it really takes elite quarterback play to lead 3 long drives like that.

Then to execute a perfect two minute drill to end the half with a touchdown, then lead multiple just win touchdown drives down by 4 late in the 4th quarter, then convert 3 straight 3rd and 10s in overtime... That's a legendary game.  

Holding a top offense scoreless for 3 whole drives isn't nothing, it just pales in comparison to what brady did to make that win possible. 

Thank you for demonstrating what I said earlier, which is that Patriots love Belichick until he the Brady question comes up and then nits are picked.  You guess he deserves some credit? Yeah, I guess a head coach deserves credit for a game plan that worked to perfection. :lol: 

Legendary game?  Let's get real.  He threw 2 awful picks and would have a 3rd awful pick, a game-ender, had a Chief not lined up in the neutral zone by mistake, but I think most of us realized years ago that your man crush on Tom Brady has rendered you incapable of being objective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

Who said that?  Of course brady benefited from belichick.  The question - if you could only have one who would you take - clearly assumes it's better to have both, and I think everyone has agreed on this. 

You on the other hand said that there's several active qbs who would have done what brady just did if they played for belichick.  

Gtfo.

Let's say Brady played on a random other team - I'll pick Washington. Let's also say NE still had BB, strong defenses, and exceptional cap management. Obviously they would need a different QB. For comparison's sake, let's say they kept Drew Bledsoe and replaced him Tony Romo  and then Jimmy Garoppolo over the past few years.

I realize it's hard not to consider having to change other players, but let's also say that the rosters for the Patriots and Redskins stayed the same starting from 2001 until now. The rest of the teams stay the same . . . so the AFC still had Peyton and the Colts, the Steelers, the Broncos, the Ravens, and limited success from anyone else. And the NFC still rotated teams that were good year to year with an occasional run by SEA, SFO, GB, etc.

How many SB titles would the Pats have and how many would the Redskins have? Remember, both teams get all the warts and blemishes and all the positives and assets as well.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For as great as Brady has been and as efficient the offense has been, the highest scoring NE team's haven't won a SB. Here were their Top 5 seasons in terms of % of points scored above league average.

2007 - 69.7% better than league average . . . Lost SB
2012 - 53.0% better than league average . . . Lost Conference Championship
2010 - 46.9% better than league average . . . Lost Division Round
2011 - 44.5% better than league average . . . Lost SB
2017 - 31.8% better than league average . . . Lost SB

By comparison, here's how they did in their SB winning seasons:

2014 - 29.4% better than league average
2004 - 27.1% better than league average
2016 - 21.0% better than league average
2018 - 16.7% better than league average
2001 - 14.7% better than league average
2003 - 4.4% better than league average

Obviously a team wants to score as many points as possible, but when the offense has been way better than average they didn't win it all. We can debate why that is (not enough talent on defense, inopportune injuries, poor drafting, free agents that didn't work out, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

The Patriots defense stopped kc three times in the first half, but they only got the ball 3 times because brady led the offense on long drives.  

The Patriots offense got the ball at the start of the game and possessed the ball for over 8 minutes, got it again and despite the interception held it for another 6 minutes and then again for close to 5 minutes on their first 3 drives.

Belichick deserves some credit for the ball control approach, i guess, but not as much as brady for executing it. And the defense gave up 31 second half points, so it turns out that keeping the ball away from the chiefs was extremely important 

And it really takes elite quarterback play to lead 3 long drives like that.

Then to execute a perfect two minute drill to end the half with a touchdown, then lead multiple just win touchdown drives down by 4 late in the 4th quarter, then convert 3 straight 3rd and 10s in overtime... That's a legendary game.  

Holding a top offense scoreless for 3 whole drives isn't nothing, it just pales in comparison to what brady did to make that win possible. 

I am not so sure about the highlighted.  Here are the drives:

First Drive:  10 rushes/ 5 passes (4-5 for Brady, about 40 yards)  - seems it was run dominated and the TD was a rush.

2nd Drive:  5 rushes/5 passes (3-5, 26 yds and a pick) - Brady not instrumental other than the pick in the endzone

3rd Drive:  4 rushes/4 passes (2-4, 18 yds)

4th Drive:  5 rushes/3 passes (3-3, 65 yds, TD) - Brady with a key role in this drive for the 2nd TD.

 

So for the first half against KC I would say the game plan and total offensive team effort (O-Line, RB, etc) was arguably more important that Brady in the first half to keep the high powered KC offense to 3 drives.  I would give more credit to BB for coming up with the approach and getting the ENTIRE OFFENSE ready to execute a run dominated performance.

Edited by Gally
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ghost Rider said:

Legendary game?  Let's get real.  He threw 2 awful picks and would have a 3rd awful pick, a game-ender, had a Chief not lined up in the neutral zone by mistake, but I think most of us realized years ago that your man crush on Tom Brady has rendered you incapable of being objective. 

Yes, legendary.

And please don't pretend you're objective 

If it was anyone but Brady who led two 2 minute drills for touchdowns you'd say wow, that's a good game. 

Anyone but brady completes a touchdown drive when they're down by 4 in the 4th quarter with 3 minutes and you say that was a pretty good game.

Anyone but brady does that twice, and you say that was a great game.

Any conference championship game with three touchdowns and a field goal in the final 3 minutes and 36 seconds of the game, and every single touchdown was a go ahead touchdown plus the field goal to go to overtime, and you'd call that a legendary game. 

And any other qb completes 3 third and 10s in overtime after that roller coaster and you'd give them their credit. 

And all of that with a trip to the superbowl on the line.  

But instead, it was brady, so ho hum you scoff at that boring game.

(Oh, and you probably aren't biased at all about that Dee Ford play, but with any other qb you'd be saying he caught the defender offside and took he free play. But tou and everybody else who wanted the Patriots to lose say omg he should have lost that game.  I know it doesn't fit your biased narrative but brady didn't throw a pick, then find out ford was offside. Fors lined up outside,  the ref threw the flag and brady took a shot.  Just because you didn't see the little yellow thing on your tv until later doesn't change the actual order of events.)

If another quarterback had won that game, it would easily be the biggest game they'd ever had. It'd be the most memorable game in Andrew luck's career, by far, since he's never even been to a superbowl, let alone in a game like that.  It would probably be the second biggest game ever for brees or Rodgers, too. But it was brady, and you didn't want him to win, and it's not even his third biggest multi touchdown second half comeback in the last 5 years so you've already downplayed it in your mind. 

Yes, legendary. Instant classic on ESPN and nfl network that will be replayed for years.  One of the greatest conference championship games of all times.  Sorry it didn't play out the way you wanted but it's true 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many other examples of master stroke game planning by BB. For example, in the two weeks prior to the ATL Super Bowl, BB had the team doing extra strength and conditioning with players lifting more weight than normal. From what I have heard, BB planned on the weather being humid and the inside of the dome getting hot. So he worked the team hard to build up their strength and endurance. Part of the game plan was to go at a frenzied pace on offense to wear out the Falcons defense. Historically, teams don't lift at all by that point of the season and basically try to take it easy to be fresher for the actual game. We all saw how that turned out, as the Falcons ran out of gas and the Pats offense then became unstoppable down the stretch. Yes, Brady was unbelievable and I still marvel at some of the passes he completed in basically a 6 inch window when they had to have it. But the two weeks preceding the game and the game plan played a big role in the team's success.

Go back to the SEA Super Bowl. Malcolm Butler said they practiced the play at the goal line over . . . and over . . . and over again. Butler struggled in practice to stop it. He worked on positioning, leverage, getting a jump on the ball, getting an angle to be able to break up the pass, etc. In the game itself, based on tendencies, formations, personnel packages, and time remaining BB KNEW that play was coming. And based on film review and having practiced defending that play so often, Butler KNEW what was coming. Hat's off to Brady for leading the comeback, but you can only tip your cap to BB sniffing out that play call weeks before hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bostonfred said:

Yes, legendary.

And please don't pretend you're objective 

If it was anyone but Brady who led two 2 minute drills for touchdowns you'd say wow, that's a good game. 

Anyone but brady completes a touchdown drive when they're down by 4 in the 4th quarter with 3 minutes and you say that was a pretty good game.

Anyone but brady does that twice, and you say that was a great game.

Any conference championship game with three touchdowns and a field goal in the final 3 minutes and 36 seconds of the game, and every single touchdown was a go ahead touchdown plus the field goal to go to overtime, and you'd call that a legendary game. 

And any other qb completes 3 third and 10s in overtime after that roller coaster and you'd give them their credit. 

And all of that with a trip to the superbowl on the line.  

But instead, it was brady, so ho hum you scoff at that boring game.

(Oh, and you probably aren't biased at all about that Dee Ford play, but with any other qb you'd be saying he caught the defender offside and took he free play. But tou and everybody else who wanted the Patriots to lose say omg he should have lost that game.  I know it doesn't fit your biased narrative but brady didn't throw a pick, then find out ford was offside. Fors lined up outside,  the ref threw the flag and brady took a shot.  Just because you didn't see the little yellow thing on your tv until later doesn't change the actual order of events.)

If another quarterback had won that game, it would easily be the biggest game they'd ever had. It'd be the most memorable game in Andrew luck's career, by far, since he's never even been to a superbowl, let alone in a game like that.  It would probably be the second biggest game ever for brees or Rodgers, too. But it was brady, and you didn't want him to win, and it's not even his third biggest multi touchdown second half comeback in the last 5 years so you've already downplayed it in your mind. 

Yes, legendary. Instant classic on ESPN and nfl network that will be replayed for years.  One of the greatest conference championship games of all times.  Sorry it didn't play out the way you wanted but it's true 

You just moved the goal posts.  When you said "legendary game" earlier, it was in reference to Brady's performance, but now you are acting like you meant the game itself was legendary. That is dishonest.  But typical. 

What is really sad is how aggravated you sound.  Your favorite team just won the Super Bowl, their 6th, and you are getting all worked up, simply because you hate it that not everyone worships the ground that Tom Brady walks on as much as you do (which actually is not possible). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost Rider said:

You just moved the goal posts.  When you said "legendary game" earlier, it was in reference to Brady's performance, but now you are acting like you meant the game itself was legendary. That is dishonest.  But typical. 

What is really sad is how aggravated you sound.  Your favorite team just won the Super Bowl, their 6th, and you are getting all worked up, simply because you hate it that not everyone worships the ground that Tom Brady walks on as much as you do (which actually is not possible). 

This is the closest you've come to admitting your fishing, so thank you for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

Hat's off to Brady for leading the comeback, but you can only tip your cap to BB sniffing out that play call weeks before hand.

You're talking about the superbowl where the seahawks and their- legendary - legion of boom defense were leading 24-14 when the Patriots got the ball back in the fourth quarter and after taking an 8 yard sack on first down Brady led a 76 yard touchdown drive to bring it within 3, then went 9 for 9 on his final drive to take the lead.

I absolutely credit belichick for that final play, but overcoming a two score deficit against an all time great defense isn't just an oh by the way i tip my gat to that too i guess. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up watching the Niners play, reason.....lived in central Cali, we got their games on TV.

So, I saw all of Joe Montana's games, he wasn't always the best ever, but he ended up that way. And I didn't see how anyone could ever be on his level. He simply had.....it.

It wasn't easy for me to FINALLY admit yes there is somebody on his level.................Tom Brady.

And it stayed that way for a few years, it was Montana/Brady and then the debate started with Rodgers/Peyton/Brees/Otto/Marino/JohnnyU on a lesser level.

A tear rolled down my cheek (BS) the day it finally hit me..........Tom Brady has surppassed Joe Montana, he is the new GOAT, Numero Uno, Da Man.

I've never seen a better QB than Tom Brady,  and that is coming from a HUGE Joe Montana fan, his rookie card one of my prized possesions.

We can play this....where would Rice have been without Montana/Young?  Where would Emmitt had been without that Dallas line, where would Barry have been with that Dallas line and on and on, the bottom line is always it is what it was. We really can't......ok ok put Tom on......nay~~~~~

Why so many do all they can to battle the fact here is the best we have seen remains a mystery to me.

 

 

Edited by ZenoRazon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

You're talking about the superbowl where the seahawks and their- legendary - legion of boom defense were leading 24-14 when the Patriots got the ball back in the fourth quarter and after taking an 8 yard sack on first down Brady led a 76 yard touchdown drive to bring it within 3, then went 9 for 9 on his final drive to take the lead.

I absolutely credit belichick for that final play, but overcoming a two score deficit against an all time great defense isn't just an oh by the way i tip my gat to that too i guess. 

For most of the banter going back and forth in here, the outcomes of key games could have all been different with changes to a very limited number of plays. I am not poo pooing Brady's performances. But against SEA, without the Butler play, that game ends like the Giants games. Brady gets the team the lead the last time he touched the ball yet they still lost.

In those games, Brady did his job (getting the lead in the final two minutes), but so did BB (having a game plan that had them still in the game and compiling a roster that got them that far). Most games it's difficult to credit one without the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghost Rider said:

You still didn't answer my questions or address my points, but that is not at all surprising since the bulk of your posts remind me of a child kicking and screaming, "Tom Brady is great, you all are so mean!!" 

Heh, you are just trolling at this point. KC scored 31 pts. Period. Who cares that they didn't score in the 1st half? It is completely irrelevant. NE had to win in overtime by scoring 37 pts. TB didn't let up and kept piling on points in SD... makes the D's job quite a bit easier.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

For most of the banter going back and forth in here, the outcomes of key games could have all been different with changes to a very limited number of plays. I am not poo pooing Brady's performances. But against SEA, without the Butler play, that game ends like the Giants games. Brady gets the team the lead the last time he touched the ball yet they still lost.

In those games, Brady did his job (getting the lead in the final two minutes), but so did BB (having a game plan that had them still in the game and compiling a roster that got them that far). Most games it's difficult to credit one without the other.

But this is stupid - a game's outcome can always be affected by a few big plays. However, one player is making far more of these big, clutch plays than others. It really is ridiculous, because I don't see this same sort of critique of any other of the greats - and TB has far surpassed any of the other greats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

But this is stupid - a game's outcome can always be affected by a few big plays. However, one player is making far more of these big, clutch plays than others. It really is ridiculous, because I don't see this same sort of critique of any other of the greats - and TB has far surpassed any of the other greats. 

Don't you think that BB has something to do with preparing TB to be in the position to recognize and make clutch plays.  Yes, TB has to physically make those plays but without the mental preparation (which I would give BB a big portion of providing the information for the preparation) TB doesn't have the mental recognition to allow his physical skills to come through. 

 

These things go hand in hand.  You really can't have one without the other.  Coaching is a huge portion of the mental side of the game which is more important than the physical portion.  Without knowing what to do the physical skills can't do the right things.  BB is a big part of why TB has the mental knowledge to do what he does. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Gally said:

Don't you think that BB has something to do with preparing TB to be in the position to recognize and make clutch plays.  Yes, TB has to physically make those plays but without the mental preparation (which I would give BB a big portion of providing the information for the preparation) TB doesn't have the mental recognition to allow his physical skills to come through. 

 

These things go hand in hand.  You really can't have one without the other.  Coaching is a huge portion of the mental side of the game which is more important than the physical portion.  Without knowing what to do the physical skills can't do the right things.  BB is a big part of why TB has the mental knowledge to do what he does. 

Never said BB doesn't play significant part - every coach does. But people are taking crazy pills if they would take BB over TB, Walsh over Montana, Seifert over Montana/Young, JJ over Aikman,  Dungy/Kubiak over Manning, Payton over Brees etc. etc. And, again, BB had 6 seasons prior to Brady and one with him injured and made the playoffs once. Put Brady on any team and I can promise you he makes the playoffs more than once over 7 years regardless of the coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Anarchy99 said:

For most of the banter going back and forth in here, the outcomes of key games could have all been different with changes to a very limited number of plays. I am not poo pooing Brady's performances. But against SEA, without the Butler play, that game ends like the Giants games. Brady gets the team the lead the last time he touched the ball yet they still lost.

In those games, Brady did his job (getting the lead in the final two minutes), but so did BB (having a game plan that had them still in the game and compiling a roster that got them that far). Most games it's difficult to credit one without the other.

I think most people agree that dilfer didn't win the ravens superbowl, that elway's helicopter was fantastic but he was a shadow of his old self by the end, and that manning got them to the playoffs and won the afccg in 2006 but it was the defense that carried the day. It's pretty cut and dried in a lot of those cases. 

And in games like that seahawks game i think you have to give them both a lot of credit. 

Where i seem to be getting a lot of friction is my assertion that without belichick, they probably wouldn't win this superbowl, but without brady, they don't get there. 

As far as i'm concerned, belichick did more to win that first superbowl in 2001 but brady deserves some credit for playing hurt and doing everything he was asked to do. Similarly i think brady swapping 4th quarter scores with the Panthers was huge, but go back to the playoff game where troy brown made the game saver on defense and how can you not credit belichick. 

And going back to that seahawks superbowl - they don't get there if brady doesn't make two huge comebacks in that ravens game, and malcom butler doesn't make that play if brady doesn't come back from down two scores in the 4th quarter.  

I think both benefited from the other, and I am lucky to have cheered for both.  I'm just saying that if I could only have one, it would be easier for a team with Brady to attract a great coach than for a team with belichick to find a multi superbowl winning quarterback. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

I think both benefited from the other, and I am lucky to have cheered for both.  I'm just saying that if I could only have one, it would be easier for a team with Brady to attract a great coach than for a team with belichick to find a multi superbowl winning quarterback. 

And this is where I personally see things differently. In the last 20 years, there have been more great QBs than there have been great coaches. Who would be in the running for other great coaches over the past two decades to fill out the Top 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sn0mm1s said:

Never said BB doesn't play significant part - every coach does. But people are taking crazy pills if they would take BB over TB, Walsh over Montana, Seifert over Montana/Young, JJ over Aikman,  Dungy/Kubiak over Manning, Payton over Brees etc. etc. And, again, BB had 6 seasons prior to Brady and one with him injured and made the playoffs once. Put Brady on any team and I can promise you he makes the playoffs more than once over 7 years regardless of the coach.

Those are his first few seasons where he undoubtedly learned a bunch of what works and what doesn't. It was also on a team where BB didn't have total personnel decisions and had to figure out how to do things that work.  I would equate this to TB's college days trying to figure out how to play which lead to Brady being a 6th round pick.  

 

I would also say that TB having BB as a mentor and teacher from the start of his NFL career was a big reason Brady improved and became the QB he is today. 

 

Coaching matters.  Your overwhelming comments completely take BB out of Brady's development and allude to Brady doing all of his development in his own.  There is no way to separate the two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

And this is where I personally see things differently. In the last 20 years, there have been more great QBs than there have been great coaches. Who would be in the running for other great coaches over the past two decades to fill out the Top 5?

That's a great point. Its easy to make a list of best QB's of the last 20 years, its relatively simple, coaches on the other hand is a tougher read.

1. Belichick

2. Coughlin

3. Carroll

4. Tomlin

Those are the 4 who have had the most success, as far as winning/or getting to Super Bowls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anarchy99 said:

And this is where I personally see things differently. In the last 20 years, there have been more great QBs than there have been great coaches. Who would be in the running for other great coaches over the past two decades to fill out the Top 5?

I'd probably go

Mike Shanahan 

Pete Carroll

Andy Reid

Sean Payton

Then for early 2000s you had guys like cowher, parcells and schottenheimer, more recently guys like Arians, Pederson and mcvay. 

Also some guys like Tomlin, Coughlin, Harbaugh, Rivera, Billick... maybe even Josh McDaniels.

And while i wouldn't trade belichick for any of those guys, i also wouldn't trade brady for "whoever belichick was able to find at quarterback", which would have started with Bledsoe then become... rohan Davey? Matt Cassel? Would they have lost enough games to get an early first round qb? 

At least if you've got an elite qb and fire a bad coach, you'll get your pick of the litter. Maybe gruden never goes to the booth, or cowher comes back to coaching.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Patriots fans are an interesting bunch when it comes to Belichick.  Many of them will defend him like crazy, until anyone suggests that he is as or more important than Brady, and then they have no problem picking nits with him and/or throwing him under the bus (see above where NE_REVIVAL actually said that Belichick did a horrific job at at some point as head coach in the last 18 years).  I get that it is more fun to root for the player than the coach, so there will always be more loyalty to the player, but it sure is fascinating to see some Patriots fan turn on their own simply because they cannot handle everyone not genuflecting to Tom Brady.  

LeBron in 2016, Dirk in 2011, Wade in '06 are three recent examples of great players who won championships despite not having great teams around them (take those guys off those teams and the Mavs and Heat don't get past the 1st round, and we've see what taking LeBron away does to the Cavs. 

Just my opinion but Wade was the second best player on his team in 2006.

LeBron had Kyrie in his Cleveland championship.

Dirk was an interesting case and I'm willing to give you that example.  But I tend to think Tyson Chandler was a lot more important than stats suggested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bostonfred said:
6 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

There are some posters in this thread who seem to think that Belichick was irrelevant and Brady would have had the same career without him. I agree with your perspective that:

  1. Brady would have been great regardless.
  2. Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick.

I am shuked that there are people who disagree with #2 unless they are just :fishing: 

Who said that?  Of course brady benefited from belichick.

OK, so, for the record, you agree that Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick. Yes or no?

6 hours ago, bostonfred said:

You on the other hand said that there's several active qbs who would have done what brady just did if they played for belichick.  

Gtfo.

Your language here is imprecise. If by "what brady just did" you mean win the same two playoff games to make it to this year's Super Bowl, then yes, that is what I said. The fact that you disagree just illustrates that you cannot view it objectively.

Disagreeing implies that you think the delta between Brady and the next best active QB, whoever you think that is, is more than the delta between Belichick, the Pats coaching staff, and the Pats roster in comparison to that second best QB's coaching staff and roster. If you think that, you're wrong, whether you think the next best QB is Brees, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Rodgers, or Wilson. :shrug: 

Edited by Just Win Baby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bostonfred said:

This is the closest you've come to admitting your fishing, so thank you for that. 

You just said above that maybe Josh McDaniels is one of the best head coaches of the 21st century and I am fishing? :lol: 

Then again, given the whipping JWB is putting on you here, you are probably a bit disoriented. 

I am just interested in a honest football discussion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know which is more critical... I think maybe it varies game to game. I also think the sum of the two is greater than their strengths individually. Bill makes Tom better, and Tom makes Bill’s schemes work better. 

In the end, we are incredibly lucky that their careers have overlapped for two decades under an owner who knows what he has, and knows how to give them what they need to win like nobody has ever won before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

You just said above that maybe Josh McDaniels is one of the best head coaches of the 21st century and I am fishing? :lol: 

Then again, given the whipping JWB is putting on you here, you are probably a bit disoriented. 

I am just interested in a honest football discussion. 

Anarchy and i are having a civil discussion, which included who brady could have played with besides belichick and enjoyed success.  I mentioned McDaniels in that context because brady has played with him and enjoyed success. Would brady have wonput up all time great numbers with McDaniels?  That's a reasonable thing to discuss. Would they have won superbowls together?  Also reasonable. 

You then jump in saying i called McDaniels one of the top coaches of the 21st century and that i'm skip bayless, then claimed you're interested in an honest football discussion.  

If you're interested in honest conversation, act like an interested participant instead of taking the dimmest view of everything i say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just Win Baby said:

OK, so, for the record, you agree that Brady would have accomplished less without Belichick. Yes or no?

Yes, i agree that he would have accomplished less.  I think i've said that a few times. 

I'm not sure if he would have "accomplished less" by your definition, because you seem to have a pretty specific definition of a quarterback's "accomplishments". If you mean would he have thrown for fewer yards and touchdowns without belichick, i'm not sure.  He's had some of his best years when they've had bad defenses and/or great receivers. 

If he was playing with a coach that didn't give him good defenses, and one who had him sling it like 2007, and if the Patriots invested in receivers like randy moss and Josh gordon instead of building around slot receivers, tight ends and pass catching running backs, he might have had better regular season numbers, maybe even won another MVP.  And almost certainly at the expense of winning some playoff games and superbowls. 

But yes, I think he won more because he was with belichick, and i think he would have won less with another coach.  If that's surprising to you then i'm not sure you've understood anything i've posted in this thread.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

Anarchy and i are having a civil discussion, which included who brady could have played with besides belichick and enjoyed success.  I mentioned McDaniels in that context because brady has played with him and enjoyed success. Would brady have wonput up all time great numbers with McDaniels?  That's a reasonable thing to discuss. Would they have won superbowls together?  Also reasonable. 

You then jump in saying i called McDaniels one of the top coaches of the 21st century and that i'm skip bayless, then claimed you're interested in an honest football discussion.  

If you're interested in honest conversation, act like an interested participant instead of taking the dimmest view of everything i say. 

You're being dishonest again. 

You mentioned McDaniels in response to Anarchy's post about how there were more great quarterbacks this century than coaches.

He directly asked: 

Who would be in the running for other great coaches over the past two decades to fill out the Top 5?

And you said: 

I'd probably go

Mike Shanahan 

Pete Carroll

Andy Reid

Sean Payton

Then for early 2000s you had guys like cowher, parcells and schottenheimer, more recently guys like Arians, Pederson and mcvay. 

Also some guys like Tomlin, Coughlin, Harbaugh, Rivera, Billick... maybe even Josh McDaniels.

 

If you want to move the goal posts again, have at it, but don't get all hurt and act like someone is fishing just because they are calling you out on your dishonesty.  It is hard to have a honest conversation with someone who is not being honest. 

Edited by Ghost Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd that people assume anyone that says Belichick is more responsible for this run of success in New England is accused of disparaging Brady when no one has done that. Everyone has basically said neither one would have accomplished as much without the other and Brady is surely the most accomplished QB of all time - and arguably the most skilled.

As I said earlier if Belichick had a QB the level of say Brian Hoyer or Ryan Tannehill for most of his time in New England he may not win a Super Bowl at all, but give him a good but not upper tier QB like Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan and I could see 2-4 Super Bowl wins for him. Give him and elite QB like Rodgers or Wilson and maybe he comes close to the 6 (but that's hard to say).

If Brady spent his career with Cincinnati, Cleveland, Washington or the NYJ he may not have won a Super Bowl at all. If he went to a good organization like NYG, GB or New Orleans I could see 2-3 Super Bowl wins for him. At an upper tier organization like Pittsburgh, Baltimore or Kansas City maybe he'd even get close to 6 (but that's hard to say as well).

I think the discussion has somewhat gone off the rails.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...